State-owned laws, family rules, good is rewarded with good, evil with evil. The law of causality is a universal law in nature, which is the same for everyone. Our words, deeds and even thoughts will plant karma in our own brain consciousness, as well as in the brain consciousness of the recipients and bystanders. When various reasons are ripe in the future, there will be the present result. Good is rewarded with good, and evil with evil. Therefore, we should focus on our present and present moment, and do our best to do every moment well, for the desired tomorrow, tomorrow ~ future ~ afterlife ~ afterlife ~ ~
There are three possibilities, and the thinking ability of each possibility is gradually enhanced.
The first possibility is that many respondents have already answered, lacking basic philosophical literacy and common sense, and unable to make a correct causal judgment.
The second possibility is that the causal relationship of the event itself is difficult to identify, and often the correlation and causality will cause confusion. For example, the U.S. Department of Education has published an interesting set of data, which shows that there is a strong correlation between the number of autistic children and the sales of organic food. Are these two things causal?
For another example, a monkey is very happy after seeing a heart. Does the peach make the monkey happy or is it particularly red that makes him happy?
There is one last possibility, philosophy is too good. Why do you say that? Because for philosophers, in fact, causality is far from as direct and simple as everyone thinks. Here, I can briefly share with you several important debates and main viewpoints in academic circles.
The first question: Is there cause and effect? David hume is the pioneer of this argument. He believes that when we say that there is a causal relationship between two things, we only observe the occurrence of their two things, but we cannot observe the real causal relationship between them. For example, we say, "Put the ice on the fire, and the fire' causes' the ice to melt". What we have observed is that when ice is put on a fire, it always melts. It is a collection of two things, not a real causal connection.
Hume's viewpoint leads to important ontological and cognitive problems.
Ontology, we will ask: Is there really a causal relationship in the world? If so, what are they like?
From the cognitive point of view, we will ask: How can we know/understand the causal relationship?
If we simply pay attention to ontology first, from Hume's standpoint, there are two viewpoints: the first is projection theory, that is, there is no cause and effect in the world, but a relationship imagined by us human beings, which is used to explain that two events always appear in groups. The second is reductionism, that is, there is no cause and effect in the world, only a constant collection of events.
Of course, there are also criticisms of Hume's related viewpoints, but in any case, it lays an important foundation for us to understand causality-causality is not a logical necessity, but at most a physical or legal necessity.
In modern times, Russell of our school (LSE) also raised more questions about causality. I'll save space for the time being, and I can add something if I'm interested. To sum up, there are two major problems: "continuity problem" and "description problem". (This also leads to the biggest question of causality: Does scientific research need causality? )
The second question: What is cause and effect? At present, almost all disciplines and ordinary people use counterfactual definitions when using "causality". Simply put, "If the A event didn't happen, the B event wouldn't happen. Then a is the reason for b "
However, there are serious problems with this definition. For example:
A and B conspired to kill C. They agreed to shoot first at a certain time. If A doesn't shoot, B will shoot. Now A shot C. It was very hot, and A was the "cause" of C's death.
But according to the counterfactual definition, if A didn't shoot, C would still die, so A can't be called the cause. This is obviously contrary to common sense.
Therefore, there are various theories in the debate about what is causality, such as "differential manufacturing" and "causal chain".
Anyway, cause and effect are not that simple. If someone is confused because of causality, it may be inexperienced and slow, but it may also be thinking too much.
There is something wrong with your consciousness! Consciousness is everything. If your consciousness is good, the result will definitely be good. If your consciousness is poor, the result will definitely be poor!
Trade imbalance. Causality disorder. Thinking must be mixed.
I read little.
Stupid person? One-sided view of the problem? Prejudice against people and things? Don't they know to look at the whole problem? Or just look on the bright side? Or just look at the bad side? Remember? Look both ways, right? Is comprehensive?
Not thinking enough.
Learning philosophy helps to strengthen the logical ability of thinking.